W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2007

RE: [Fwd: Language Ontology]

From: Debbie Garside <md@ictenterprise.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:43:47 +0100
To: "'Felix Sasaki'" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "'Elisa F. Kendall'" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Cc: "'WWW International'" <www-international@w3.org>, "'Semantic web list'" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <E1HgFgh-0002y9-UH@maggie.w3.org>

Felix wrote:

> Debbie might expect that I point you to this: CLDR [1] 
> already has such as structure, and the structure is filled 
> with region (and other) names in many "locales". 

Indeed! :-)

Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-international-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> Sent: 24 April 2007 07:52
> To: Elisa F. Kendall
> Cc: Debbie Garside; 'WWW International'; 'Semantic web list'; 
> 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology]
> 
> 
> Hello Elisa,
> 
> Elisa F. Kendall wrote:
> > Hi Debbie,
> >
> > Thanks for the warning.  We did know that it was 
> incomplete, but are 
> > interested in representations of place names in local languages, so 
> > having a structure for capturing this information, even if 
> incomplete, 
> > is useful.
> 
> Debbie might expect that I point you to this: CLDR [1] 
> already has such as structure, and the structure is filled 
> with region (and other) names in many "locales". See an 
> excerpt of locale display names for English below:
> 
> <ldml>
>     <identity> [...] <language type="en"/>
>     </identity>
>     <localeDisplayNames>
>         <languages>
>             <language type="de">German</language> [...] </languages>
>         <scripts>
>             <script type="Latn">Latin</script> [...] </scripts>
>         <territories>
>             <territory type="DE">Germany</territory> [...] 
> </territories>
>         <variants>
>             <variant type="1901">Traditional German 
> orthography</variant>
>             <variant type="1996">German orthography of 
> 1996</variant> [...] </variants>
>     </localeDisplayNames>
> 
> you might want to see if this is useful for your efforts.
> 
> Regards, Felix.
> 
> [1] http://unicode.org/cldr/index.html
> 
> >   We're also looking at other government and research community 
> > resources to assist with both structure and content.  If you have 
> > suggestions for references, that would be helpful.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Elisa
> >
> > Debbie Garside wrote:
> >> Please be very careful with the use of the "Administrative 
> Language" 
> >> information from ISO 3166-1.  It is incomplete and 
> therefore not good 
> >> data.
> >>  
> >> For example, it shows only two "Administrative Languages" 
> for India 
> >> where there are at least twenty-two.  I am hoping that this 
> >> information will be taken out of the standard in the near 
> future.  I 
> >> am currently writing an ISO NWIP for a revision of ISO 
> 3166-1 which 
> >> will include a proposal for the deletion of this data.
> >>  
> >> Best regards
> >>  
> >> Debbie Garside
> >> Editor ISO DIS 639-6
> >> www.geolang.com <http://www.geolang.com>
> >>
> >>     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>     *From:* www-international-request@w3.org
> >>     [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Elisa F.
> >>     Kendall
> >>     *Sent:* 23 April 2007 18:25
> >>     *To:* Misha Wolf
> >>     *Cc:* Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG; WWW International; Semantic web
> >>     list; LTRU Working Group
> >>     *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology]
> >>
> >>     Hi Misha,
> >>
> >>     We are very aware of it, and have been following the 
> work, but I
> >>     failed to mention it in the email.  I should say that our
> >>     ontology was developed for offline use in an internal 
> system, as
> >>     an initial requirement.  Having said that, if you look at the
> >>     RFCs, they only describe tags, not an RDF vocabulary or OWL
> >>     ontology.  Our approach is compatible with the RFCs but adds
> >>     capabilities that support co-reference resolution, for example,
> >>     in target application.
> >>
> >>     Best,
> >>
> >>     Elisa
> >>
> >>     Misha Wolf wrote:
> >>>     This sounds very worrying as you don't seem to be 
> aware of BCP 47.
> >>>      
> >>>     Misha
> >>>
> >>>     
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>>     *From:* www-international-request@w3.org
> >>>     [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Elisa
> >>>     F. Kendall
> >>>     *Sent:* 23 April 2007 17:32
> >>>     *To:* Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG
> >>>     *Cc:* 'WWW International'; Semantic web list
> >>>     *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: Language Ontology]
> >>>
> >>>     Hi Gauri,
> >>>
> >>>     We've done this for some of our government customers, using
> >>>     essentially the second approach you cite.  We're also in the
> >>>     process of relating the ontology to another one we've built to
> >>>     represent ISO 3166, which includes the administrative 
> languages
> >>>     used by countries and non-sovereign territories  
> represented in
> >>>     that standard.
> >>>
> >>>     If you can hang out for a few days, we (Sandpiper) are just
> >>>     finalizing a version that includes both ISO 639-1 and 
> 639-2. The
> >>>     approach is more of a hybrid of the two you present, based on
> >>>     customer needs.  It includes a fragment of ISO 1087, and also
> >>>     some inverse relations since there is a one-to-one
> >>>     correspondence between languages and codes.  We elected to
> >>>     create a 'Language' class, rather than 
> 'LanguageCode', which we
> >>>     reuse in other applications; classes for Alpha-2Code and
> >>>     Alpha-3Code are subclasses of CodeElement, from ISO 5127, with
> >>>     instances of these codes as first class individuals. We use
> >>>     literals (via datatype properties) to represent the set of
> >>>     English, French, and in the case of 639-1 Indigenous names. 
> >>>     We've also created subclasses of Alpha-3Code to support
> >>>     distinctions between bibliographic and terminologic, 
> collective,
> >>>     and special identifiers, with individual and macrolanguages to
> >>>     support 639-3.  A subsequent release will include all of the
> >>>     languages described in ISO 639-3, as well as additions to
> >>>     support at least some of the subtagging that Dan 
> mentions, fyi. 
> >>>     Our intent is to publish it on a new portal that will become
> >>>     part of a new service offered by the Ontology PSIG in the OMG,
> >>>     since we've been asked to publish several ontologies in recent
> >>>     RFPs.  I'll be happy to send our preliminary version when it's
> >>>     "baked and tested", and follow up with an announcement of the
> >>>     new portal (where a revision using OMG URIs will be 
> posted) once
> >>>     that's available.  It may be a couple of months before we're
> >>>     ready to make that announcement, but we're hoping that the
> >>>     service will be useful to many of us in the Semantic 
> Web community.
> >>>
> >>>     Best regards,
> >>>
> >>>     Elisa
> >>>
> >>>     Dan Brickley wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>     Forwarding from the Dublin Core list, in case folk here can
> >>>>     advise.
> >>>>
> >>>>     Gauri, one thing I'd suggest as useful would be to take the
> >>>>     concepts implicit in RFC 4646,
> >>>>
> >>>>     http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt
> >>>>     see also
> >>>>     
> >>>> 
> http://www.w3.org/International/articles/language-tags/Overview.en.
> >>>> php
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     ...and in particular the subtag mechanism, script, region,
> >>>>     variant etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>     It would be great to have those expressed explicitly.
> >>>>
> >>>>     cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>>     Dan
> >>>>
> >>>>     
> >>>> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> -----
> >>>>
> >>>>     Subject:
> >>>>     Language Ontology
> >>>>     From:
> >>>>     "Salokhe, Gauri (KCEW)" <Gauri.Salokhe@FAO.ORG>
> >>>>     Date:
> >>>>     Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:28:39 +0200
> >>>>     To:
> >>>>     DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> >>>>
> >>>>     To:
> >>>>     DC-GENERAL@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     Dear All,
> >>>>
> >>>>     We are working on creating Ontology for languages. 
> The need came up as we
> >>>>     tried to convert our XML metadata files into OWL. In 
> our metadata (XML)
> >>>>     records, we have three types of occurrences of 
> language information. 
> >>>>
> >>>>     <dc:language scheme="ags:ISO639-1">En</dc:language>
> >>>>     <dc:language scheme="dcterms:ISO639-2">eng</dc:language>
> >>>>     <dc:language>English</dc:language>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     We have two options for modelling the language ontology:
> >>>>
> >>>>     1) Create a class for each language, assign URI to 
> it and add all the other
> >>>>     lexical variations, ISO codes (create datatype 
> property) as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>     OWL:Thing
> >>>>     |_ Class:Language
> >>>>     	|_ Instance:URI1
> >>>>     		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="en" English
> >>>>     		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="es" InglÚs
> >>>>     		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="it" Inglese
> >>>>     		|_ rdfs:label xml:lang="fr" Anglais
> >>>>     		|_ etc.
> >>>>     		|_ property:hasISO639-1Code  en (string)
> >>>>     		|_ property:hasISO639-2Code  eng (string)
> >>>>     		|_ etc.
> >>>>     	|_ Instance:URI2
> >>>>     	|_ Instance:URI3
> >>>>     	|_ Instance:URI4
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     2) Create Classes called Language and Language code 
> and make links between
> >>>>     instances of Language and Language Codes as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>     OWL:Thing
> >>>>     |_ Class:Language
> >>>>     	|_ Instance:URI1
> >>>>     		|_ property:hasCode  en  (link to the 
> en instance of Class
> >>>>     ISO639-1 below)
> >>>>     		|_ property:hasCode  eng  (link to the 
> eng instance of Class
> >>>>     ISO639-1 below)
> >>>>
> >>>>     |_ Class:LanguageCode
> >>>>     	|_ SubClass ISO639-1
> >>>>     		|_ Instance:en
> >>>>     		|_ Instance:fr
> >>>>     		|_ etc.
> >>>>     	|_ SubClass ISO639-2
> >>>>     		|_ Instance:eng
> >>>>     		|_ Instance:fra
> >>>>     		|_ etc.
> >>>>     	|_ etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>     Does anyone have similar experience with modelling 
> in OWL? Any suggestions on
> >>>>     which model is better and (extensible)? Does an 
> ontology already exist that
> >>>>     we can reuse?
> >>>>
> >>>>     Than you, 
> >>>>     Gauri
> >>>>       
> >>>
> >>>     This email was sent to you by Reuters, the global news and
> >>>     information company.
> >>>     To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com
> >>>
> >>>     Any views expressed in this message are those of the 
> individual
> >>>     sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
> >>>     the views of Reuters Limited.
> >>>
> >>>     Reuters Limited is part of the Reuters Group of companies, of
> >>>     which Reuters Group PLC is the ultimate parent 
> company. Reuters
> >>>     Group PLC - Registered office address: The Reuters Building,
> >>>     South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5EP, United Kingdom
> >>>     Registered No: 3296375
> >>>     Registered in England and Wales
> >>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 07:43:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:15 GMT